Day 031 - 05 Oct 94 - Page 28
1 them?
2 A. Sure, that is correct.
3
4 MS. STEEL: So, your view is that although you consider that
5 the data on individuals is weak, that does not detract
6 from the overall parallels that can be drawn?
7 A. I do not think it does, because I think I have already
8 explained the reasons why the individual data has inherent
9 weaknesses in it because of the polygenetic makeup. It is
10 very interesting. If I can give you an example of this,
11 there is an enzyme system which is genetically determined
12 -- I shall not give you the full name of because it is a
13 long winded name, but it is abbreviated as AHH. What this
14 enzyme does is to break down polycyclic hydrocarbons. If
15 you are genetically -- it is under polygenetic control;
16 that is, a number of genes are required for this
17 particular enzyme system. This is quite well established
18 in that people who have a high activity of this enzyme,
19 for that reason, are at particular risk and exaggerated
20 risk to lung cancer. I think this is an example of the
21 way in which the wide diversity of genetic performance can
22 influence risk to disease.
23
24 Q. Just before we leave this page, the Berzelius Symposium --
25 you have not yet managed to find the paper on that --
26 perhaps you could explain a little bit about what was
27 under debate, what exactly was debated at this symposium?
28 A. It was a debate really held by the Swedish Medical
29 Society in Stockholm. It had an international
30 attendance. Basically, it asked the question, if we are
31 going to try to prevent heart disease, are we going to
32 have a different diet to the diet that we are going to
33 recommend for the prevention of cancer? By and large,
34 although there were some dissenters to the view, which is
35 usually the case, by and large, I think everybody agreed
36 that the recommendations that are prudent for the
37 prevention of heart disease and cancer would be similar.
38 But that was some time ago, and I think we have moved on
39 since then.
40
41 I would suggest to you that the sort of recommendations
42 that came out of the Scottish Office are something that
43 one pays more attention to than what we did in Stockholm
44 in 1986. I think there is a considerable strength in the
45 sort of report such as came out of the Scottish Office
46 because they are unbiased; whereas, with the best will in
47 the world, individuals, I dare say including myself, will
48 have some form of personal bias both in terms of the
49 evidence they have individually seen through their life,
50 and maybe their own feelings about things that really have
51 nothing do with the evidence. But when you get a group of
52 people together discussing the matter and trying to
53 formulate words that are agreed across a body of expert
54 opinion, then I think organisations like the British
55 Nutrition Foundation and the Scottish Office represent
56 fairly unbiased but, nonetheless, critical views, critical
57 views which probably hold back a bit from what people like
58 myself might be wanting to recommend.
59
60 Q. They were being cautious?
